89 comments:

Sure, it is his seat. He had it for almost 50 years and he still had the seat when he died. Technically - on the last point at least - it is his seat. What else would it be?

I think you are assuming they are just calling it "The Kennedy Seat". As in, it will always be called that even after someone else wins it. But I would say any Senator's seat is a seat in their name until someone else comes along to take it or win it or be a replacement.

I don't either, but then I moved to NY from Massachusetts long ago. That kind of talk will stop when the voters stop behaving as if they lived in a dynasty. The voters made a start (somewhat) when one of the Kennedy kids lost her bid to become the governor of MD a few years ago (and losing to a Repub in MD took some talent). I'm afraid Massachusetts still has a way to go on that score.

Looked at more broadly, dynasties are strong in lots of areas of contemporary life -- not just politics, but Hollywood/TV, pop music, pro sports, to name a few. In those fields where talent and ability are paramount (e.g., pro sports), the dynastic element is partly a result of good genes. But in other areas, particularly where good PR/marketing is what matters most, it's today's version of the 'old boys' club. As with the original version, I suspect it tends to favor the boys.

Well, let's consider Joe's qualifications and how they compare to Teddy's.

He's a Kennedy in Massachusetts. No further qualifications have ever been needed. Check.

He was repeatedly expelled from schools for bad behavior. Check.

He repeatedly cheated on his first wife before dumping her. Check.

He hasn't *quite* managed to kill a girlfriend with his car, but he came close. I think we can give him partial credit on that point. Paralyzing a lover should be worth something, after all.

He does not, however, appear to have a serious and uncontrolled drinking problem. Tough break, there.

So let's see. He's a 3.5 on the 5 point Ted Kennedy Personal Achievement Scale. That's fairly impressive, but I suspect there are a few other people in his family tree who can beat it. Could be a tough race!

In 1945, the Merchandise Mart was purchased for $12.5 million by former Ambassador to Great Britain Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr., the father of future U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Later managed by Sargent Shriver, the building was owned for more than 50 years by the Kennedy family through Merchandise Mart Properties, Inc. until 1998, when MMPI was acquired by Vornado Realty Trust for $450 million in cash and a $100-million-plus stake in Vornado. In early 2007, the building was valued at $917 million.

So since 1998 they've had $450 million, and a $100 million share of The Vornado Real Estate Trust.

Oh and since the $100 million share of The Vornado Real Estate trust I'm sure that $100 million since 1998 has grown.

The Vornado Real Estate Trust-

Divisions

Vornado Realty Trust controls over $20 billion in assets, including $12.7 billion in real estate net of depreciation and amortization, $2.8 billion in cash, and $1.5 billion of investments as of 3Q07. These holdings are divided into the following divisions:

Matt- "I think you are assuming they are just calling it "The Kennedy Seat". As in, it will always be called that even after someone else wins it. But I would say any Senator's seat is a seat in their name until someone else comes along to take it or win it or be a replacement."

1. Given the seat was held by a Kennedy or Kennedy retainer (1960-62) since 1952, it is a 57 year-old family trophy the media believes the heirs of Camelot are entitled to, "to keep the Dream Alive" (barf!)

2. Curiously, though, our political system says it is a seat by which the People of Massachusetts and the State of Massachusetts is represented in Federal government through the officeholder.If the citizens are dumb enough to put another Kennedy in or Teddy's wife as long as she uses the "magic name" - well - that's their sorryass fate.

Revenant said...Well, let's consider Joe's qualifications and how they compare to Teddy's.

missed a couple.

- Divorced First wife in 91.- First wife opposed an annulment that Kennedy desired on the grounds that he was not mentally competent to enter into a marriage in the first place.- Kennedy remarried in a civil ceremony in 93. - In 96, the first wofe discovered a secret annulment had been granted on her marriage. She appealed to the Vatican, which reversed the annulment

Point taken.Note, though, that this article refers to it as the 'so called' Kennedy seat. The fact that is is 'so called' actually changes everything. I took it further, which technically was incorrect.The fact still remains - in laymen terms - that it is his seat because he was still serving a term.I mean, if you talk to most people they would accept someone saying something like, 'Hey, who do you think will take [or fill] Kennedy's seat?'We know it is not really his seat. And yes it is really the people of MA seat. But who says, 'Hey, who do you think will fill the people of MA Senate seat?"Would be sort of odd.

I don't know? Did Kennedy say that about Romney?The argument that someone is rich is a weak argument because most everyone in the Senate is rich. So it begs the question who should represent the poor or the working class? How many poor or working class folks get in the Senate while they are still poor and working class? Not many. If any, actually. So what matters most is what a senator does with the seat when they get it. You are probably a Republican and I'm sure you have no trouble with rich Republican senators. And you shouldn't. Unless they only represent Wall Street's interest.

" have read enough of your posts to know that this couldn't possibly be a Republic anymore."

Heh. Good one.

But someone's got to tell you how things will actually work out when your goddamned utopia fails.

It's rather simple to make predictions about the actual versus desired outcomes of policies started by socialists. Their ideological blinders prevent them from ever seeing what is rather obvious and frighteining.

And because you're just another leftist youth too eager to conform to dare question the liberal received wisdom that has been part of your pedagogy since before you were reliably continent, you'll never see what's coming until it smacks you in the face.

Wow, so I guess you accuse the Kennedy's of not only being rich but being greedy capitalists. How UnAmerican of them....Crazy I know but being rich and looking out for the financial interests of your family and your investments is not a crime either.

Better not get too critical of capitalists or you'll have Pogo calling you a communist.

Why does it matter that the Kennedy's are rich? Does it bother you that the Bushes are rich too?

It bothers that the Kennedys keep supporting laws aimed at keeping me from *becoming* rich -- for example, high income taxes, capital gains taxes, and death taxes, plus of course all sorts of efficiency-killing red tape and pointless restrictions on business. They're classic examples of limousine liberals -- people who climbed the ladder of success and are now trying to pull it up after them.

Yeah, but according to your point of view we have been a socialist country since the 1930's [or earlier] so the way I see it the middle class was built and maintained on this kind of socialism. You know like the GI Bill and social security and many more.So, yeah, if the America that has become the greatest country in the world has been built on socialism [taxes actually] then call me a socialist.

If you understand how Real Estate Trusts work-it's pretty passive-the Kennedys pretty much rest on it-they don't have to know business, they don't have to compete-it's pretty much like being on cruise control since Joe Kennedy Sr.

wv:reers

They have money and the Catholic guilt that comes from that and the middle class are the selfish ones that don't want to pay out the wazoo in taxes.

Income tax is not high enough to keep you from being rich. Trust me. The tax rates in this country were higher from the 1950's to the 1980's when this country built itself up to enormous wealth.I don't know what you make but I have a tough time believing that the taxation right now can keep a good capitalist down.

And, also, show me some Republicans you complained about for being Limousine liberal like. Because at the end of the day they all are. But that doesn't mean they can't support tax breaks or health care programs or civil rights programs that are good for us all. But you know this.

"So what matters most is what a senator does with the seat when they get it."

The single class of US "investors" that has done the best of All, better than any mutual fund operators, is .... US Senators. Their increase in net worth while in the Senate cannot be matched by any other investor type. I'd mention Charlie Rangel, to take just a single example, who has doubled his net worth in the last year, but of course he's not a Senator, so I can't. Of course there's always Harry Reid....

I don't know about you, Matt, but I ascribe the truly phenomenal economic and investment success of our Senators to mere coincidence. You take a big enough batch of monkeys, and you'll find a group of 100 of them making 27 straight passes at craps; that's our Senate, that's "what they do with the seat when they get it."

Yes, Social Security and Medicare are going broke. Everyone knows that. That doesn't mean they have not worked. It just means we need to rethink how to continue to finance them. Because I guarantee you politicians who won't fix it will be quickly gone - while politicians who will fix it will be seated for years to come.Think about it. A lot of folks showing up at the town halls are freaked out that their Medicare will be cut off. And they're the Republicans in the group. What happens if it is cut off some day.Yeah, it won't be pretty.

You can send all the Thomas Sowell columns you want to the elderly. But I guarantee you it won't replace a social security check or a medical plan that pays for most of their expenses.But you can try. That is what I called blind ideology. You're more interested in the words Thomas Sowell writes than you are in the actual programs that have been working for years.

Income tax, business taxes, regualtions on businesses, products made illegal or impossible by legislation, State taxes, fees, and fines, coupled with massive unfunded obligations and other debt spending mean that every citizen in the US now owes $38,000.

The debt as % of GDP in 1980 was 33%. In 2000 it was 58%. The debt under Obama is projected to double to exceed 100% of GDP.

If you do not understand how that kind of massive debt will undermine the future of this country, you sue your college for malpractice.

"Yes, Social Security and Medicare are going broke. Everyone knows that. That doesn't mean they have not worked."

Yes, Matt, that's exactly what it means. They were both Ponzi schemes, which can be said to have 'worked' until the last suckers are left holding the bag.

Living well by credit card spending also 'works' until the money stops rolling in and bills must be paid.

" It just means we need to rethink how to continue to finance them."No shit, Sherlock. That's what all failed Ponzi schemes do: look for a bail-out.

"What happens if it is cut off some day. Yeah, it won't be pretty."And you can thank FDR for designing a program that he knew would fail, but not for a couple generations, and put off until tomorrow what he should have doen from the start, when it would have been far less painful.

The pain you speak of is the fault of socialists, for having created the Ponzi scheme in the first place.

Social security? It's broke Matt. Insolvent. Just like 1000 current US banks.

Yet it keeps chugging along, decade after decade, despite the constant howlers from the right. Oh, and I bet grandma is glad Republicans didn't get their way and stuck all her money in SS into the markets.

PogoYour historical view is off a bit. FDR set up Social security in 1935. He did not necessarily set it up with a plan for the far far future. Who does? But more importantly Social Security is expected to last with no changes until 2037. So that means FDR set up a plan to run for 100 years. Not bad, actually. Especially since he had no idea about what the future would bring. He also set it up to deal with the Great Depression. So I think we can forgive FDR for protecting the elderly and not thinking about how Social Security will provide benefits a century later.

And it is not a Ponzi scheme. It's a pay-as-you go insurance program that is soon to be challenged by demographic changes. But it can be fixed. And, yes, it will be fixed by perhaps raising the cap on social security payroll taxes. Many people and businesses won't like that. But even more will be upset if it is cut off some day.

PogoOkay, so I am right. Thanks for admitting it in your interesting way. FDR did good by setting in place a system that will work for at least 100 years.

G Joubert Let's say for the sake of argument that FDR only set up social security because he was cynical. Do you think all the elderly people who benefited all these years should be angry about it? I mean, that's a pretty good outcome for cynicism.Anyway I think you may be cynical. I mean would you also claim that LBJ only set in motion Civil Rights so that minorities would vote for him? If so what's the alternative? No rights?

"But more importantly Social Security is expected to last with no changes until 2037. So that means FDR set up a plan to run for 100 years. Not bad, actually. "

Matt:

With all due respect,the Dems and the Reps have increased the Soc Sec tax rate from 1% to more than 12%. In fact, a 1,200% increase in the tax rate over 40 years is an enormous "change" not to mention the increase in the soc sec ceiling of 1,000%.

The way the program has been mis-managed is a very poor tribute to Roosevelt's great "unchanged" plan.

It has become "de rigeuer" in this country to bash the rich. How sad. The so-called rich have the funds to create new companies and jobs. Many that benefit by it, spit on it. I wonder why.I was told from a very early age that the world does not owe me a living and neither do we. Unfortunately, too many of the newly rich believe that the government should provide for the masses because they are too stupid to provide for themselves. That is the mantra but it is really about power for the "ruling Class" as I am sure many of you know.It goes without saying that the Kennedy's are new class but no class.And so it goes...

At least the term is not unique to Kennedy. I remember when Jesse Helms retired his seat was referred to as the Helms seat. Liddy Dole won that seat and was there for a six year term, but when Kaye Hagan beat Dole I heard many refer to it again as the Helms seat. Of course Democrats like to say they now control the Jesse Helms seat. That carries a lot more symbolism than saying they won Elizabeth Dole's seat.

You are correct. I meant to say if nothing changes with the funding of the fund it will last until 2037. [Or that is what I understand to be the case].But, yes, they have made adjustments to taxes to fix it along the way.

knoxChuckle or not, the system - although it has problems - had helped millions of elderly Americans. Without the monthly checks many would be destitute. Also important to note that Social Security helped the elderly retire earlier than they used to in the 1930's thus opening the job market to younger folks.It's got a while to go too before it is in trouble. And it will be fixed. No politician would get rid of it. Not at this stage. And certainly not after the recent performance of the stock market and 401k investments.

FDR succeeded in making the poor and minorities into net losers via SSI, because they pay in far more than they ever get out, due to their shorter lifespans, transferring all their money to middle class white women, who gained the most from this Ponzi scheme.

The average life-expectancy of the social security beneficiary, for which the first check was issued in January, 1940, was 53.9 for males, and 60.6 for females. Oh, the original retirement age was 65. Do the math. You'll get two answers: the average male was dead 11 years, 3 months before drawing Social Security, and the average female was dead 4 years, six months before drawing a check. The second answer is, of course, cynicism.

And since Social Security, as rhhardin said, "is insurance against outliving your savings", the poor and minorities, being shorter-lived on average, are thus cheated out of not only any SSI benefits, that they paid into for years, they are not able to transfer their hard-earned wealth onto their kids, to make their lives better. Instead, they give it to middle class and wealthy white women.

Former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich famously described a seat in the US Senate as “a fucking valuable thing.” Blago had a point; Senate seats are in fact much too “fucking valuable” to permit them to be appropriated a family heirlooms. Yet the Senate adheres to primogeniture more closely than ever.

Until Senator Kennedy’s death, one in eight Senators could be said to reflect the body’s hereditary character.

I didn't say our current tax rates were enough to keep me from becoming rich. I referred to the Kennedys' support for higher taxes -- higher quite obviously meaning "higher than they are now".

Trust me. The tax rates in this country were higher from the 1950's to the 1980's when this country built itself up to enormous wealth.

You're confusing the highest marginal tax rate (which was indeed higher in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s) with the effective tax rate on the first and second income quintiles (which is much higher today than it was in the 1950s, 60s and 70s, although still not nearly as high as people like the Kennedys would like).

And, also, show me some Republicans you complained about for being Limousine liberal like.

Show me one you think I should have complained about and didn't.

Because at the end of the day they all are. But that doesn't mean they can't support tax breaks or health care programs or civil rights programs that are good for us all. But you know this.

Sure, it is hypothetically possible that Kennedy could have supported tax breaks, health care programs ,or civil rights programs that were good for us all. It is just that he didn't. :)

and I bet grandma is glad Republicans didn't get their way and stuck all her money in SS into the markets.

Hm.

For every dollar you invested in the stock market on the day it peaked, you now have $0.67. A 33% loss -- ouch. On the other hand, every dollar you invested 20 years ago is now worth $3.53, and every dollar you invested 40 years ago you have $11.68.

For every dollar you have paid into Social Security, you now have $0.00. But that's ok, because the government saved $0.00 of that on your behalf, reducing your total losses to... er, 100%. Oops. All you have is an empty promise that the government will give you SOME money back, if you live long enough, and if the government stays solvent. The government is currently less solvent than Enron. Good luck with that.

It should be obvious to anyone with a brain that investing in the markets is safer than trusting the government. The United States government depends on the stability of the world economy, not vice-versa. You can't say for certain that the United States government will exist in 40 years, and you certainly can't say for certain that any given social program will. But you can say for certain that people will still be buying and selling.

Whatever it is, bet TK's estate won't pay a fraction of it. Tho legions of shopkeepers and farmers with assets of a few million (rather than a TK few hundred million) will be in the same bracket as TK and will pay the whole confiscatin' percentage of the thing.

How can this be? Because they won't have TK's legacy offshore tax shelter trust chartered on the island of Fiji.

But that's okay. At least TK the tax-shelterman wasn't ALSO a huge power behind that 50% estate tax.

Jeez, can ya imagine --that would've been SO shameless. SO hypocritical. So immoral. So corrupted greedy cynical royalist.

Oh --what's that you say? He WAS a huge power behind that 50% estate tax?

It's nothing but a journalistic trick. Frank Phillips calls it The Kennedy seat, but he wants to pretend it's more than just him, so it becomes "the so-called Kennedy Seat".

The beauty of this formulation is that if the phrase ever becomes an embarrassment, Frank Phillips can chastise the public for calling it "The Kennedy Seat" without ever taking responsibility for the fact that he calls it that.

So, over forty years, adjusted for inflation, you make 12 percent a year on the average, and you have very high risk if you didn't choose your shares wisely

So don't by individual stocks. The figures I cited assumed you invested in a DJIA index fund. Those are low risk. Historically they've been NO long-term isk -- yes, even counting crashes like the one this last year.